#11




Re: Discussion of the VC proof
Quote:
__________________
Where everyone thinks alike, no one thinks very much 
#12




Re: Discussion of the VC proof
I think this is so much clearer than when it is put in sentences. Thank you.

#13




Re: Discussion of the VC proof
I was going through the proof in Appendix A and I just want to make sure that something written towards the bottom of pg. 189 is a typo.
Namely, should read I'm 99.999999999999% sure this is indeed a typo since the latter case easily follows from reverse triangle inequality and it suffices to show the inequality in (A.3) and I cannot see how one can arrive at the implication in the former case nor how the former case implies the inequality (A.3), but it would ease my mind if I can get a verification that it is a typo. Thank you in advance! 
#14




Re: Discussion of the VC proof
Yes, this is a typo. Thank you for pointing it out. You have it correct.
If A and C imply B, then Quote:
__________________
Have faith in probability 
#15




Re: Discussion of the VC proof
Recently I have started reading the proof of the VC inequality in the appendix. On the bottom of page 190(Lemma A.3) , why does
sigma_S P[S] x P[sup_h E_in  E_in' > ... S ] <= sup_S P[sup_h E_in  E_in' >．．．S ]? (Sorry for the terrible notations, I don't know how I can input math symbols) what does it mean by taking the supremum on S? 
#16




Re: Discussion of the VC proof
Quote:
So this inequality simply says an expected value (of P[sup_...]) is less than or equal to the maximum value. Hope this helps.
__________________
When one teaches, two learn. 
#17




Re: Discussion of the VC proof
Thank...
__________________
[URL="http://www.merakligencler.net/kuranikerimdegecendualar/"][B]kuranı kerimde geçen dualar[/B][/URL] 
#18




Re: Discussion of the VC proof
I am a machine learning practitioner currently applying machine learning to algorithmic trading, yet highly interested in the theoretical grounds of the field.
I have read your book "Learning from data" from cover to cover. I haven't solved the problems though. I however did go through the proof of the VC bound in the appendix. I succeeded to understand most of it except (A.4) in the bottom of page 189. I can understand that you have applied Hoeffding Inequality to h*, but your explanation on how this applies to h* conditioned to the sup_H event, is hard to grasp for me. Can you please give more explanation on how using Hoeffding (A.4) holds ? Or give a reference that helps clarifying this result? Openload Movies Free Download Movies HD Online
__________________
[URL="http://www.aldabyu.com/"]Free Download Movies HD Online[/URL] 
#19




Re: Discussion of the VC proof
Hi,
I have a question about the sentence on page 190: Quote:
When set the above term to 1/4 I will receive 2*ln(1/4) as value for N*eps^2. Now I can set N*eps^2 to that value in Theorem A.1 and I will get on the RHS (assuming the growth function is just 1) 4*0,707... so it is much more than 1. A value of 1 in the RHS would be sufficient to say the bound in Theorem A.1 is trivially true. And this would assume, that the above term is less than 1/256. With this in mind 1  2*e^(0.5*N*eps^2) is greater than 0,99... and thus instead of a 2 in the lemmas outcome, I would receive a value around 1, which is a much better outcome. So why is the value 1/4 chosen for the assumption? Best regards, André 
#20




Re: Discussion of the VC proof
Suppose
Then, . In which case and the bound in Theorem A.1 is trivial. Quote:
__________________
Have faith in probability 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

